Ethnic Enclave - Ethnic Enclave Debate

Ethnic Enclave Debate

The discourse surrounding ethnic enclaves has prompted debate among scholars in two related areas of thought. Both areas discuss the role ethnic enclaves play by either offering aid or hindering the economic and social well-being of the enclave’s members. One area of thought discusses the role of enclaves in assimilative patterns and upward mobility while the second area of thought argues the economic ramifications associated with membership within ethnic enclaves.

The immediate economic and social advantages associated with membership in an ethnic enclave are undisputed by scholars, however the long-term consequences remain an area of uncertainty. The role these networks play remains uncertain due to the fact that ethnic enclaves allow immigrants to function successfully within the host society without a significant amount of adjustment either culturally or linguistically. As such, they can either help or hinder naturalization within the host country. The relatively low levels of skill required allow immigrants to achieve financial stability which can in turn encourage eventual naturalization and assimilation. Adversely, this same factor can afford enclave members the opportunity to remain considerably segregated and secluded from the host society. As such, members may circumvent the need to acquire skills necessary for life in the larger host society such as knowledge of cultural norms and language.

The debate regarding the economic viability of ethnic enclaves revolves around the enclave-economy hypothesis. The hypothesis as written by Wilson and Portes formulates the idea that “mmigrant workers are not restricted to the secondary labor market.” They instead argue that “those inserted into an immigrant enclave can be empirically distinguished from workers in both the primary and secondary labor markets. Enclave workers will share with those in the primary sector a significant economic return past human capital investments” something those who enter the secondary labor market are not able to enjoy. Thus, they assert the enclave economy is not a mobility trap as some would term it, but an alternate mode of incorporation.

In their argument formulated to disprove the enclave economy hypothesis, Sanders and Nee state the need for a distinction between “immigrant-bosses” and “immigrant-workers” as the economic benefits differ along this distinction. They also call for the investigation of economic opportunities available to those in the enclave, believing them to be lesser in quality and supply. Sanders and Nee also assert the idea that segregation and forced entrance of immigrant-workers into low paying jobs is actually aggravated by the existence of ethnic enclaves. Due to these objections, they call for the revision of Portes and Wilson’s hypothesis to include an acknowledgement and outline of the entrepreneur/worker economic benefit distinction.

In reaction to Sanders and Nee, Portes and Jensen make the clarification that those in ethnic enclaves need not be wealthier than those who left the enclave for the hypothesis to be supported. They instead assert that this will usually not be the case as the constant entrance of new immigrants into the enclave will actually be somewhat burdensome on the economy; a factor which does not actually represent disadvantage when compared with the other advantages provided. Additionally, Portes and Jensen outline three different conditions to be fulfilled in order to disprove their hypothesis. The first of these conditions requires the demonstration that ethnic entrepreneurship is a mobility trap leading to lower earnings than the immigrant’s worth in human capital. The second condition requires data proving the work within the enclave to be exploitative, and the third condition requires data showing employment within the enclave leads to a ‘dead end’ and offers no chance of upward mobility. They acknowledge that the fulfillment of these three requirements is difficult as there is little data available to accurately test them.

Jennifer Lee adds to the discussion noting the particular niches and types of business immigrant groups enter. She notes that it is most common for immigrants to participate in long hours of physically demanding work in the retail industry. The retail market is a viable option due to the relatively low startup costs and knowledge of the host country’s language required. Different niches have different levels of communication, for example the retail and self-service niche, (fruit and vegetable markets, take out restaurants) typically require the lowest level of customer interaction and communication. Lee notes the embeddedness of ethnic enclaves and brings the thought that such practices are good for those within the enclave but harmful to certain groups outside of them. She also notes the adverse effects patterns of ethnic embeddedness can have on surrounding ethnic groups by noting the difficulty other groups face in joining the network. She argues that this type of retail niche domination can have positive consequences for co-ethnics, as Portes and Wilson believe, however can also have negative effects on surrounding ethnic groups who face exclusion due solely to their ethnic dissimilarity from the network.